Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Feb 2013 22:10 UTC
Permalink for comment 551445
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/22465.html?thread=856257#cmt856257
I can understand why they're using Secure Boot like this given what they want the Chromebook to actually be. Wiping user data when someone (could be you, could be someone else) installs another system on it is something you actually want to happen and you certainly do if you're an organisation with remote workers with these machines all over the place.
The tricky part here is differentiating between a legitimate person who wants to modify his/her system and someone malicious with a stolen machine and keeping the actual security usefulness of Secure Boot intact for the end user.
I have never seen an answer from Redmond on that topic.
The notion that Chromebooks are more locked down that Windows 8 machines is bollocks.